Every time the Bush Administration wants to engage in a major policy change, the sound like an ad agency. Remember that they saber rattling they did in August 2003, chief of staff Andy Card said you don't roll out a new product in August? So they launched It after Labor Day, a little thing called the Iraq war. When things don't go well, this president that doesn't care about polls goes to local media outlets on the theory that they won't ask as tough as questions as the national media.
Just ask Utah's Chris Vanocur and his Peabody about that one.
Most of their communications staff seem to come from the corporate and ad world. and instead of solving problems, it seems the communications staff go to work and making people think there is no problem or that there is another more pressing problem (see Saddam, Social Security, etc). it is really amazing to see their utter unwillingless to address any problems other than with a speech.
I guess you could also call the Bush White House post-modernist too. There is no reality for them, there is only everyone's own perception of what reality is. and so if they can change enough people's perceptions boom, there reality is changed. Too bad that bombs keep blowing up and terrorist recruitment and activity seem to increase rather than decrease while "the insurgency is in its last throes."
Another distraction technique they use is to equate known bad things with other things they don't like. Like Osama and Saddam...they would purposely confuse the two and intermingle the two topics. Or now, Osama and liberals. By saying that Osama's tape "sounds just like Michael Moore" it distracts people from the fact that its been like 5 years since we were attacked by bin Laden and he is obviously not dead or captured.
I didn't like Fehrenheit 9/11 that much, I thought that bowling for collumbine was a much better film, and I think Moore says stupid stuff all the time, but he doesn't sound anyhing anything like Osama. Even Moore or Sean Penn isn't dumb enough to call for a truce. I would say that bin Laden sounds like Star Jones! Man, I can't think of a worse insult to bin Laden, or anyone for that manner to be compared to than Star Jones.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Burns doesn't learn
For the junior Senator from Montana's 71st birthday, he is spending it with the only people he really loves--Abramoff tied lobbyists.
Instead of going back home to the Big Sky state, or hanging out with family or staff, Burns is going to make his birthday party into a at a fundraiser sponsored by Cassidy & Associates--the same folks that used to be Alexander Associates--until so many of their staffers were pleading guilty that they had to close shop briefly and rename themselves. Either Burns needs cash so badly that he has to go through the most tainted of sources, or he is just clueless, or politically suicidal. Or all of the above.
Hat Tip The Fix and Political Wire.
Instead of going back home to the Big Sky state, or hanging out with family or staff, Burns is going to make his birthday party into a at a fundraiser sponsored by Cassidy & Associates--the same folks that used to be Alexander Associates--until so many of their staffers were pleading guilty that they had to close shop briefly and rename themselves. Either Burns needs cash so badly that he has to go through the most tainted of sources, or he is just clueless, or politically suicidal. Or all of the above.
Hat Tip The Fix and Political Wire.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
me MIA
two nights ago, I woke up very hot so I took off my shirt and went back to sleep. When I woke up in the morning, I was feeling achey, weak, and sweaty. The day turned out terrible as I was shivering indoors with my coat and gloves on. Boring classes were even worse. And because my wife had choir practice last night, I had to ride my bike to and from school because otherwise I wouldn't get home until 9:30 or 9.
I staggered into my house, make myself instant stuff and climbed into bed. About 30-45 minutes later, I took a shower and felt better. My wife babied me when she got home, and then I got so hot that I broke out in a sweat. My temp at that point was a little over 100 degrees. With the help of theraflu and gatorade, I feel better today, but not 100%.
Interestingly, my butt and lower back hurt. I wonder if it is from bicycling or how I sat up to eat or what.
Soon, I will be teaching a high school class 2 to 3 times a week with my friend whom I know from my days interning for Rep. Matheson. The girl I was originally scheduled to work with (whom I knew from High School and the year I lived in DC) dropped out last minute because of the conflict with her clinic. In some ways, I think this will be a better pairing for me. Expect postings on my experience with high schoolers in the next couple weeks.
I staggered into my house, make myself instant stuff and climbed into bed. About 30-45 minutes later, I took a shower and felt better. My wife babied me when she got home, and then I got so hot that I broke out in a sweat. My temp at that point was a little over 100 degrees. With the help of theraflu and gatorade, I feel better today, but not 100%.
Interestingly, my butt and lower back hurt. I wonder if it is from bicycling or how I sat up to eat or what.
Soon, I will be teaching a high school class 2 to 3 times a week with my friend whom I know from my days interning for Rep. Matheson. The girl I was originally scheduled to work with (whom I knew from High School and the year I lived in DC) dropped out last minute because of the conflict with her clinic. In some ways, I think this will be a better pairing for me. Expect postings on my experience with high schoolers in the next couple weeks.
Monday, January 16, 2006
King and Alito
So today is the day we celebrate the life work of Martin Luther King Jr. this is the day that folks spend 5 minutes to say racism still exists and we still have progress to make. And people will wonder what is life was like, and these days people remind the audience that Dr. King was vehemently against the Vietnam war and probably would have been against this war too had he lived.
But my post today is to remind people that was only 42 years ago. That none of the progress that was made was inevitable. Heck, King's birthday didn't become a holiday until the 1980s, and even then Republicans and Southern Senators had be dragged kicking and screaming. My parents were alive and aware when the civil rights movement broke out and I am sure many of my readers lived through it as well. It can all go back, history is not a 1-way street.
And with the selection of folks like Alito, the doors of discrimination will be able to open up more and more. Alito to me looks like a modern-day Roger B Taney, a justice has no respect for the law other than his ability to twist it into any shape he finds satisfying. Precedent say abortion is legal? No problem, just let Sam's "open mind" get cracking. The commerce clause gives congress the right to prohibit discrimination by private persons? Alito's got a few ideas (see his US v. Rybar opinion for creative use of commerce clause powers).
Alito isn't just conservative, he is reactionary. He is finally getting to let out all his frustration with being a nerd and unliked in college or law school by most people. His anger at how the world was changing while he was in school, and his efforts to strike back in the Reagan administration. Bush had this view too, when those damn women and minorities had to ruin his old Yale.
So again, my message is vigilance. We have to protect the progress that has been made in the last 40-50 years and strive for more progress. For universal access to health care, a national education system that puts other nations to shame, to good jobs and retirement security. We are a society that values its children, its old, its poor, its discriminated, its sick, its infirm, we don't throw them at the mercy of the winds anymore. And so we can't let others chisel away protection that we have worked so hard to build up over the years with circular logic and terrible reasoning filling the United States Reporters.
But my post today is to remind people that was only 42 years ago. That none of the progress that was made was inevitable. Heck, King's birthday didn't become a holiday until the 1980s, and even then Republicans and Southern Senators had be dragged kicking and screaming. My parents were alive and aware when the civil rights movement broke out and I am sure many of my readers lived through it as well. It can all go back, history is not a 1-way street.
And with the selection of folks like Alito, the doors of discrimination will be able to open up more and more. Alito to me looks like a modern-day Roger B Taney, a justice has no respect for the law other than his ability to twist it into any shape he finds satisfying. Precedent say abortion is legal? No problem, just let Sam's "open mind" get cracking. The commerce clause gives congress the right to prohibit discrimination by private persons? Alito's got a few ideas (see his US v. Rybar opinion for creative use of commerce clause powers).
Alito isn't just conservative, he is reactionary. He is finally getting to let out all his frustration with being a nerd and unliked in college or law school by most people. His anger at how the world was changing while he was in school, and his efforts to strike back in the Reagan administration. Bush had this view too, when those damn women and minorities had to ruin his old Yale.
So again, my message is vigilance. We have to protect the progress that has been made in the last 40-50 years and strive for more progress. For universal access to health care, a national education system that puts other nations to shame, to good jobs and retirement security. We are a society that values its children, its old, its poor, its discriminated, its sick, its infirm, we don't throw them at the mercy of the winds anymore. And so we can't let others chisel away protection that we have worked so hard to build up over the years with circular logic and terrible reasoning filling the United States Reporters.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
diggin' up 'balance'
How come Republicans can find has-beens with axes to grind to say anything bad about veterans and no one in the media calls it. But if some actual ex-administration official speaks the truth, they are labeled as spiteful liers by the traditional press?
Just compare what they said about Richard Clarke versus Don Bailey. Bailey, who lost to Murtha over twenty years ago in a primary, claims that Murtha told him he lied to get his purple hearts. First of all, even if that was true, which there is nothing behind it but lies...but even if it was true, how does that make what Murtha says about the war less true? He still would be a decorated war veteran and ex-Marine who has been the head of the House Defense Appropriation Committee and has garnered great respect for the brass at the Pentagon. He voted for the war. And now he strongly believes based on what he has been told by military folks in the field, that the war is unwinniable and that we need to go home.
Now, I don't know if I agree with Murtha. I think there is a lot of truth to what he says though. And I have more reason to trust him than say, Scott McClelland or Dick Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney or George W. Bush.
So why do we have to listen to repeated baseless attacks against veterans who oppose the war in Iraq? Why do these charges recieve any air time. One word: balance. THe right wing brutalized the traditional media into beliving that since the journalist themselves were culturally liberal, their news was similarily liberal. Of course, the TRUTH or FACTS are not liberal or conservative or moderate. They are just facts or truth. And the fact is, the war is not going well. The fact is, our troops keep dying and there is absolutely no stablity or security over in Iraq. In terms of everyday municipal services, life is worse post-Saddam than pre-Saddam. The electricity is off days at a time, there are Carter-style gas lines, no trash pick up, etc. Sure they have democracy, but what good are free elections if those elected will make your country Iran II?
Just compare what they said about Richard Clarke versus Don Bailey. Bailey, who lost to Murtha over twenty years ago in a primary, claims that Murtha told him he lied to get his purple hearts. First of all, even if that was true, which there is nothing behind it but lies...but even if it was true, how does that make what Murtha says about the war less true? He still would be a decorated war veteran and ex-Marine who has been the head of the House Defense Appropriation Committee and has garnered great respect for the brass at the Pentagon. He voted for the war. And now he strongly believes based on what he has been told by military folks in the field, that the war is unwinniable and that we need to go home.
Now, I don't know if I agree with Murtha. I think there is a lot of truth to what he says though. And I have more reason to trust him than say, Scott McClelland or Dick Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney or George W. Bush.
So why do we have to listen to repeated baseless attacks against veterans who oppose the war in Iraq? Why do these charges recieve any air time. One word: balance. THe right wing brutalized the traditional media into beliving that since the journalist themselves were culturally liberal, their news was similarily liberal. Of course, the TRUTH or FACTS are not liberal or conservative or moderate. They are just facts or truth. And the fact is, the war is not going well. The fact is, our troops keep dying and there is absolutely no stablity or security over in Iraq. In terms of everyday municipal services, life is worse post-Saddam than pre-Saddam. The electricity is off days at a time, there are Carter-style gas lines, no trash pick up, etc. Sure they have democracy, but what good are free elections if those elected will make your country Iran II?
Thursday, January 12, 2006
can't get enough hearing highlights
Today's the last day of Senators questioning the nominee. Next up, interest groups gone wild!
But first, some irony (not Atlantis Morissette-style) Sen. Biden said Supreme Court nominees are so mum about the major legal issues at their Senate confirmation hearings that the hearings serve little purpose and should probably be abandoned. According to the NY Times, "Mr. Biden used about 1800 words in his 20 minutes Wednesday, down from about 3800 words during his 30 minutes Tuesday. In each case, Judge Alito got in about 1,000." Some more Biden moments, from the Times: "Discussing the Family and Medical Leave Act, he noted that his own wife, daughter-in-law and daughter had all worked through their pregnancies until the time that they gave birth. He noted that his daughter was now in graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania. And he reiterated once again that he was an 'Irish Catholic kid from Claymont' who would not have been comfortable in the old days at Judge Alito's alma mater, Princeton."
Mrs. Alito broke down in tears yesterday. No one knows whether this was due to tremenous boredom, the Democrats' attempts at attacking Alito's character, or Republicans' at asking him overly soft questions.
Kohl sought to get Alito to say good things about O'Connor and that he would be just like her on the SCOTUS. Alito refused to go along, saying he would be the same guy that HW Bush appointed to the 3rd circuit.
Feingold says assume all procedures are perfect - is there a contitutional right to not be executed if one is innocent? Alito again stresses the procedural protections in place to prevent this.
Schumer showed little patience to sit and listen to Alito's rather lengthy responses, which were drawn out and utterly neutral explanations of methods of analysis: how he would approach a case, rather than how he would decide it. Schumer then tried a kind of multiple choice approach [no pens and bubble sheets jokes please]: "Judge, I'm going to give you two interpretations of the Commerce Clause....Which one is closer to your view of the Commerce Clause?" A. Congress can do whatever B. Morrison/Lopez rock C. Can we go in the way back machine to 1937?
Specter asks Grassley to tell Alito his Anita Hill story in order to give Alito a brief respite. Grassley says that during the Anita Hill hearings many people confused him with Specter and berated his questioning of Ms. Hill.
Turning to the "unified executive" theory, Sessions asks a hard question: "There are only three branches, aren't there?" Alito: Last time I checked. Previously, Sessions noted that Alito's sister is at the hearings and they were debate partners in school. Wants to know who was better. Alito takes the 5th.
But first, some irony (not Atlantis Morissette-style) Sen. Biden said Supreme Court nominees are so mum about the major legal issues at their Senate confirmation hearings that the hearings serve little purpose and should probably be abandoned. According to the NY Times, "Mr. Biden used about 1800 words in his 20 minutes Wednesday, down from about 3800 words during his 30 minutes Tuesday. In each case, Judge Alito got in about 1,000." Some more Biden moments, from the Times: "Discussing the Family and Medical Leave Act, he noted that his own wife, daughter-in-law and daughter had all worked through their pregnancies until the time that they gave birth. He noted that his daughter was now in graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania. And he reiterated once again that he was an 'Irish Catholic kid from Claymont' who would not have been comfortable in the old days at Judge Alito's alma mater, Princeton."
Mrs. Alito broke down in tears yesterday. No one knows whether this was due to tremenous boredom, the Democrats' attempts at attacking Alito's character, or Republicans' at asking him overly soft questions.
Kohl sought to get Alito to say good things about O'Connor and that he would be just like her on the SCOTUS. Alito refused to go along, saying he would be the same guy that HW Bush appointed to the 3rd circuit.
Feingold says assume all procedures are perfect - is there a contitutional right to not be executed if one is innocent? Alito again stresses the procedural protections in place to prevent this.
Schumer showed little patience to sit and listen to Alito's rather lengthy responses, which were drawn out and utterly neutral explanations of methods of analysis: how he would approach a case, rather than how he would decide it. Schumer then tried a kind of multiple choice approach [no pens and bubble sheets jokes please]: "Judge, I'm going to give you two interpretations of the Commerce Clause....Which one is closer to your view of the Commerce Clause?" A. Congress can do whatever B. Morrison/Lopez rock C. Can we go in the way back machine to 1937?
Specter asks Grassley to tell Alito his Anita Hill story in order to give Alito a brief respite. Grassley says that during the Anita Hill hearings many people confused him with Specter and berated his questioning of Ms. Hill.
Turning to the "unified executive" theory, Sessions asks a hard question: "There are only three branches, aren't there?" Alito: Last time I checked. Previously, Sessions noted that Alito's sister is at the hearings and they were debate partners in school. Wants to know who was better. Alito takes the 5th.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
more Alito fun
Biden, who rambled about being a Ivy League parent for a while yesterday, donned a a Princeton Univ. hat to show how he too was a concerned alumni of princeton (CAP).
Coburn expressed anger that Sen. Durbin changed his mind on the abortion question, but wasn't there. When Durbin got there, he was upset about the comment and wanted to respond, but Coburn was no longer there. When Coburn was there, and Durbin was only 20 seconds into his response he referred to Sen. Hatch, who, of course, wasn't in the room. Specter said they would have to get the 3 Senators in the hearing at the same time. Meanwhile, they are supposed to be asking questions to some guy who is could replace Sandra Day for life, what was his name again?
Kennedy motioned for the committee to go into executive session to consider issuing a subpoena for records related to Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Specter, caught off guard by Kennedy's motion, scolded Kennedy for not mentioning the proposal in advance. Kennedy said he sent Specter a letter on 12/22 requesting the "William Rusher papers" from the Library of Congress. Kennedy: "If you're going to rule it out of order, I want to have a vote on that." Specter to Kennedy: "I'm not going to have you run this committee" Specter: "There was no letter, which I received... I take umbrage at you telling me what I received." Then Kennedy presented Specter's reply to Kennedy's initial letter. Oops.
Sen. Feinstein wants to try "one more time" to get him to give her a satisfactory answer on Roe. She says that according to the Washington Post, yesterday Alito used a phrase to describe stare decisis -- that precedent "is not an exorable command" -- that the former Chief Justice used in a case in which he was arguing for overruling Wade. Did he mean to use it in the same way? Alito and Feinstein discuss whether one should believe everything one reads in the Washington Post.
And a congressional hearing wouldn't be complete without a sports or war analogy. Grassley Compared Alito to a quarterback whose team is ahead in the fourth quarter, charged that Democrats are going to keep "trying to sack you." "They haven't hit you all day," he said, so expect some "last minute Hail Marys." GROAN.
Hatch spent most of his time lobbing softball questions to Alito that allowed him to rebut criticisms made over the past two days by Democratic senators.
HATCH: But most employment discrimination cases really are decided at the lower level. ALITO: Most of them are. HATCH: And when they get up to your level it's generally decided on technical or a procedural basis. Am I wrong in that? ALITO: No, that's correct, Senator.
And now for some boring actual questions about pressing constitutional issues:
LEAHY: But does the president have unlimited power just to declare a statute -- especially if it is a statute he had signed into law -- to then declared that unconstitutional, and he’s not going to follow it?
ALITO: If the matter is later challenged in court, of course, the president isn’t going to have the last word on that question. That’s for sure. And the courts would exercise absolutely independent judgment on that question. It is emphatically the duty of the courts to say what the law is when constitutional questions are raised in cases that come before the court.
LEAHY: Now, that is an answer I agree with. Thank you.
Coburn expressed anger that Sen. Durbin changed his mind on the abortion question, but wasn't there. When Durbin got there, he was upset about the comment and wanted to respond, but Coburn was no longer there. When Coburn was there, and Durbin was only 20 seconds into his response he referred to Sen. Hatch, who, of course, wasn't in the room. Specter said they would have to get the 3 Senators in the hearing at the same time. Meanwhile, they are supposed to be asking questions to some guy who is could replace Sandra Day for life, what was his name again?
Kennedy motioned for the committee to go into executive session to consider issuing a subpoena for records related to Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Specter, caught off guard by Kennedy's motion, scolded Kennedy for not mentioning the proposal in advance. Kennedy said he sent Specter a letter on 12/22 requesting the "William Rusher papers" from the Library of Congress. Kennedy: "If you're going to rule it out of order, I want to have a vote on that." Specter to Kennedy: "I'm not going to have you run this committee" Specter: "There was no letter, which I received... I take umbrage at you telling me what I received." Then Kennedy presented Specter's reply to Kennedy's initial letter. Oops.
Sen. Feinstein wants to try "one more time" to get him to give her a satisfactory answer on Roe. She says that according to the Washington Post, yesterday Alito used a phrase to describe stare decisis -- that precedent "is not an exorable command" -- that the former Chief Justice used in a case in which he was arguing for overruling Wade. Did he mean to use it in the same way? Alito and Feinstein discuss whether one should believe everything one reads in the Washington Post.
And a congressional hearing wouldn't be complete without a sports or war analogy. Grassley Compared Alito to a quarterback whose team is ahead in the fourth quarter, charged that Democrats are going to keep "trying to sack you." "They haven't hit you all day," he said, so expect some "last minute Hail Marys." GROAN.
Hatch spent most of his time lobbing softball questions to Alito that allowed him to rebut criticisms made over the past two days by Democratic senators.
HATCH: But most employment discrimination cases really are decided at the lower level. ALITO: Most of them are. HATCH: And when they get up to your level it's generally decided on technical or a procedural basis. Am I wrong in that? ALITO: No, that's correct, Senator.
And now for some boring actual questions about pressing constitutional issues:
LEAHY: But does the president have unlimited power just to declare a statute -- especially if it is a statute he had signed into law -- to then declared that unconstitutional, and he’s not going to follow it?
ALITO: If the matter is later challenged in court, of course, the president isn’t going to have the last word on that question. That’s for sure. And the courts would exercise absolutely independent judgment on that question. It is emphatically the duty of the courts to say what the law is when constitutional questions are raised in cases that come before the court.
LEAHY: Now, that is an answer I agree with. Thank you.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
hearing quote of the day
Sen. Lindsey Graham said he believes Judge Sam Alito when he says he doesn't remember certain parts of his murder boards.
Alito smiled appreciately.
Continued Graham: "And if any of us come before a court and say we can't remember Abramoff, you'll believe us."
"Abramoff who?" queried another Senator.
"Wasn't he the guy in the Bible?" asked a third.
It would be funny if so many Republicans weren't going to jail.
Alito smiled appreciately.
Continued Graham: "And if any of us come before a court and say we can't remember Abramoff, you'll believe us."
"Abramoff who?" queried another Senator.
"Wasn't he the guy in the Bible?" asked a third.
It would be funny if so many Republicans weren't going to jail.
members of congress that hurt america
There are members of congress on both sides of the ailse that really upset me for all the crap they do that is a disservice to our system of governance.
1. Joe Biden (D-DE): All he does is talk. It took him over ten minutes to get to a question for ScAlito today. The Senator is on nearly every weekend on some Sunday talk show, and tries to squeeze in some time to talk to Jim Lehrer and Jon Stewart during the week. The George Hamilton of the Senate is so eagar to be on TV and in print that he is willing to be the guy that attacks his fellow Democrats and such a blow hard that even when he is trying to pitch for his team, he bores and annoys everyone in his path.
2. Tom Coburn (R-OK): Such a culture warrior that he has to cry about how divided this country is, and then do a crossword. I am sick of being lectured by someone on Abortion because they are a "doctor" and some how their opinion matters more. Not when your argument has nothing to do with medicine Senator.
3. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): This Rep. makes long speeches on bridges not bombs and other oratory devices that put his former collegue James "convicted for bribery and money laundering" Trafficant to shame. Routinely endorces policies that either have no chance of occuring or if they do would be disasterous. See his term as mayor.
4. Richard Palmbo (R-CA): I am not sure if I spelled his name right, but all he cares about his how quickly resources can be extracted from the environment, planet and endangered species be damned. And he is the chair of the House Resources Committee.
5. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): for enambling a disasterous and rabidly administation to claim "bipartisan support" by having Joementum's support. Joe lives in the same fantasy world as Bush when it comes to how things in Iraq are going.
But really we should be talking about ScAlito and what a farce "advise and consent" has become in recent years. The judiciary committee should not be divided by party and with competing hyperpartisans. This a serious job for lifetime appointments. Maybe they should let staffers do it, or senators that are not ramblers, idiots, or generally crazy.
1. Joe Biden (D-DE): All he does is talk. It took him over ten minutes to get to a question for ScAlito today. The Senator is on nearly every weekend on some Sunday talk show, and tries to squeeze in some time to talk to Jim Lehrer and Jon Stewart during the week. The George Hamilton of the Senate is so eagar to be on TV and in print that he is willing to be the guy that attacks his fellow Democrats and such a blow hard that even when he is trying to pitch for his team, he bores and annoys everyone in his path.
2. Tom Coburn (R-OK): Such a culture warrior that he has to cry about how divided this country is, and then do a crossword. I am sick of being lectured by someone on Abortion because they are a "doctor" and some how their opinion matters more. Not when your argument has nothing to do with medicine Senator.
3. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): This Rep. makes long speeches on bridges not bombs and other oratory devices that put his former collegue James "convicted for bribery and money laundering" Trafficant to shame. Routinely endorces policies that either have no chance of occuring or if they do would be disasterous. See his term as mayor.
4. Richard Palmbo (R-CA): I am not sure if I spelled his name right, but all he cares about his how quickly resources can be extracted from the environment, planet and endangered species be damned. And he is the chair of the House Resources Committee.
5. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): for enambling a disasterous and rabidly administation to claim "bipartisan support" by having Joementum's support. Joe lives in the same fantasy world as Bush when it comes to how things in Iraq are going.
But really we should be talking about ScAlito and what a farce "advise and consent" has become in recent years. The judiciary committee should not be divided by party and with competing hyperpartisans. This a serious job for lifetime appointments. Maybe they should let staffers do it, or senators that are not ramblers, idiots, or generally crazy.
Monday, January 09, 2006
notice something?
Reuters Headlines
Sharon breathes on own, moves slightly
Cheney leaves hospital after breathing scare
Were the two related? Why do democracies keep electing old, fat overstressed men with a history of poor coronary health?
I was listening to the German equivalent of 60 Minutes daily recently and the commenters asked some damn good questions: Why wasn't there doctors around the clock with Sharon? Why was he at a farm so far away from medical care? Why did they not take him to the best hospital in the county? Why was he not on blood thinners?
The whole thing seemed rather botched and haphazard, like they had no idea the man had had a previous stroke, was old, and under lots of stress.
Then again, if Cheney died or had a Sharon-like stroke/coma, what would the Bush administration do? Katrina shows they are not good a preparing with or dealing with natural disasters. Even though this one has long been forseen, somehow I doubt they have any contingency plans. Bush would be very sad but then use the appointment of VP to change the topic and boost his own ratings.
Sharon breathes on own, moves slightly
Cheney leaves hospital after breathing scare
Were the two related? Why do democracies keep electing old, fat overstressed men with a history of poor coronary health?
I was listening to the German equivalent of 60 Minutes daily recently and the commenters asked some damn good questions: Why wasn't there doctors around the clock with Sharon? Why was he at a farm so far away from medical care? Why did they not take him to the best hospital in the county? Why was he not on blood thinners?
The whole thing seemed rather botched and haphazard, like they had no idea the man had had a previous stroke, was old, and under lots of stress.
Then again, if Cheney died or had a Sharon-like stroke/coma, what would the Bush administration do? Katrina shows they are not good a preparing with or dealing with natural disasters. Even though this one has long been forseen, somehow I doubt they have any contingency plans. Bush would be very sad but then use the appointment of VP to change the topic and boost his own ratings.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Kos, Jerome and the Dean denial
First off, I think Howard is doing a good job as DNC chair and I am glad he the chair instead of Roemer or Vilsack. Just so you don't think I have an irrational hatred of Dean.
However, HoHo did himself in in 2004. Kos and Jerome in their new book seem to believe that it was the DLC and its allies that killed Dean. Not true. The DLC certainly called Dean names, and saw his rhetoric as dangerous for the party's chances in 2004, but if they are really as trival and on the downswing that Kose et al say they are, how could they take down a major presidential candidate.
The fact is, Dean blew millions on infomercials in Wisconsin, PR events in central park, and on Trippi's old ad firm itself. In December of 2003, the Dean campaign was focusing on getting endorcements from folks like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. The burn rate of the campaign was amazing. Dean had thousands of his grassroots supporters, mostly from ultra-liberal, storm Iowa with with fancy hats and scarves and it backfired. Iowans got really annoyed with all the handwriten letters, the calls, the out of staters telling them how to vote. Meanwhile, Kerry had hired the best Iowa organzier in the early days of 2003, had locked up Ted Kennedy's endorsement and took out a mortgage on his house to barnstorm with Kennedy around Iowa. Edwards gave the same speech over and over again in small crowds of Iowans and agreed to a devils bargin with the Kucinich folks to insure an inflated result.
Meanwhile, Dean ran negative ad after negative ad against Dick Gephardt. Man, even typing that name makes me laugh, what a joke of a candidate. Gephardt's allies, not the DLC's, did a soft money ad comparing Dean to Osama. While Dean's campaign was wasting money, time, and effort on the wrong things, Kerry and Edwards focused on organizing reliable caucus goers.
And guess how they finished: Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephardt. THAT is what killed Dean, not replaying his crazy scream speech over 600 times.
Kerry had the entire Mass. Democratic establishment campaigning for him in New Hampshire. he had been broadcasting ads there since his 2002 senate reelection. Dean meanwhile, got a strong second in New Hamsphire, which is next door to Vermont and was his second home in 2002 and early 2003.
When I was in the "Live Free or Die!" state for Clark, I saw giantic Dean sign after giantic Dean sign held by Dean hat and scarved fans, who chanted their little slogans "hope not fear" and the like. Again, the spent lots of money changing the Dean signs from blue background and yellow writing to yellow background with blue writing. And again, for what?
Clark in the end did better than Dean, winning Oklahoma where Dean never won a single state (I don't know the delegate totals, but Clark had lots of 2nd places in the 3/2 states).
Please Deanies, don't blame the DLC for Dean's horrific flop in the primaries. Clarkies ultimately blamed our loss on our boss hesitating to get into the game so late that he couldn't compete in Iowa and that he got in so late that the only staff left to hire was Gore 2000 douchebags.
However, HoHo did himself in in 2004. Kos and Jerome in their new book seem to believe that it was the DLC and its allies that killed Dean. Not true. The DLC certainly called Dean names, and saw his rhetoric as dangerous for the party's chances in 2004, but if they are really as trival and on the downswing that Kose et al say they are, how could they take down a major presidential candidate.
The fact is, Dean blew millions on infomercials in Wisconsin, PR events in central park, and on Trippi's old ad firm itself. In December of 2003, the Dean campaign was focusing on getting endorcements from folks like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. The burn rate of the campaign was amazing. Dean had thousands of his grassroots supporters, mostly from ultra-liberal, storm Iowa with with fancy hats and scarves and it backfired. Iowans got really annoyed with all the handwriten letters, the calls, the out of staters telling them how to vote. Meanwhile, Kerry had hired the best Iowa organzier in the early days of 2003, had locked up Ted Kennedy's endorsement and took out a mortgage on his house to barnstorm with Kennedy around Iowa. Edwards gave the same speech over and over again in small crowds of Iowans and agreed to a devils bargin with the Kucinich folks to insure an inflated result.
Meanwhile, Dean ran negative ad after negative ad against Dick Gephardt. Man, even typing that name makes me laugh, what a joke of a candidate. Gephardt's allies, not the DLC's, did a soft money ad comparing Dean to Osama. While Dean's campaign was wasting money, time, and effort on the wrong things, Kerry and Edwards focused on organizing reliable caucus goers.
And guess how they finished: Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Gephardt. THAT is what killed Dean, not replaying his crazy scream speech over 600 times.
Kerry had the entire Mass. Democratic establishment campaigning for him in New Hampshire. he had been broadcasting ads there since his 2002 senate reelection. Dean meanwhile, got a strong second in New Hamsphire, which is next door to Vermont and was his second home in 2002 and early 2003.
When I was in the "Live Free or Die!" state for Clark, I saw giantic Dean sign after giantic Dean sign held by Dean hat and scarved fans, who chanted their little slogans "hope not fear" and the like. Again, the spent lots of money changing the Dean signs from blue background and yellow writing to yellow background with blue writing. And again, for what?
Clark in the end did better than Dean, winning Oklahoma where Dean never won a single state (I don't know the delegate totals, but Clark had lots of 2nd places in the 3/2 states).
Please Deanies, don't blame the DLC for Dean's horrific flop in the primaries. Clarkies ultimately blamed our loss on our boss hesitating to get into the game so late that he couldn't compete in Iowa and that he got in so late that the only staff left to hire was Gore 2000 douchebags.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
a change in Israel?
With Sharon suffering from a massive stroke just prior to leaving his ultra-conservative party (and being replaced by ex-PM Benjamin Netanyahu as party leader), just what will happen to Israel?
Most signs point to a Benjamin Netanyahu's resurgence as the next PM...he is trying to orchestrate a massive resignation from Sharon's cabinet. It was odd that Sharon in the last few years suddenly became a peace maker of sorts by force. Most recently, he unilaterally moved out of the Gaza Strip.
Netanyahu makes Sharon look like a hippie and I predict more violence and bloodshed by bothsides.
After reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse" I think one of Israel/Palistein's real problem is not exclusively religion or "ancient ethnic hatred" but rather a biter fight over scarce resources. The Land of Cannan is afterall a desert, and these kibbutz(es) are really the main arm of the radical jewish settlers, not reconquering the kingdom of David.
I am neither jewish or muslim, as you might have guessed from my photo, but I believe the fate of Israel is critical for the U.S. and the world as a whole. With the resurgence of Iran--its sucess in Iraq, it nuclear program, its radical government-- there are legitimate fears that things in the middle east will get much worse before they get better, especially, with Netanyahu in charge (as I opined above).
All comments and thoughts are welcome on this subject, as always.
Most signs point to a Benjamin Netanyahu's resurgence as the next PM...he is trying to orchestrate a massive resignation from Sharon's cabinet. It was odd that Sharon in the last few years suddenly became a peace maker of sorts by force. Most recently, he unilaterally moved out of the Gaza Strip.
Netanyahu makes Sharon look like a hippie and I predict more violence and bloodshed by bothsides.
After reading Jared Diamond's "Collapse" I think one of Israel/Palistein's real problem is not exclusively religion or "ancient ethnic hatred" but rather a biter fight over scarce resources. The Land of Cannan is afterall a desert, and these kibbutz(es) are really the main arm of the radical jewish settlers, not reconquering the kingdom of David.
I am neither jewish or muslim, as you might have guessed from my photo, but I believe the fate of Israel is critical for the U.S. and the world as a whole. With the resurgence of Iran--its sucess in Iraq, it nuclear program, its radical government-- there are legitimate fears that things in the middle east will get much worse before they get better, especially, with Netanyahu in charge (as I opined above).
All comments and thoughts are welcome on this subject, as always.
beyond corporate malfeasance
As I am sure most of you know by now, there were about a dozen miners trapped thousands of feet under the earth in West Viriginia. Only one person survived for the 40 hours it took to find the miners, mostly because of the life-threatening levels of Carbon Monoxicide that made it slow going for the resuers. At about midnight, the families of the miners (and their friends and neighbors who were with them) in the church across the street from the mine got word that everyone was alive, despite all the bad news that they had been hearing all day.
Bells rang out, and jubulant people streamed forth proclaiming a miracle. For 3 hours-- 180 minutes-- no one from the company bothered to tell the families or the media that this rumor they heard was tragically dead wrong. It is one thing to keep hope alive, it is quite another to let happy lies go uncorrected. The company could have told the families that they didn't know yet, that it was too soon to tell. Instead they let them rejoice until 3 AM and then broke the devastating news.
I don't know if a law was broken, other than the dozens of safety violations that went unenforced under Bush's OSHA, but what this company did to the relatives of its former employees was immoral. They can say it was a "miscommunication," they can trot out the governor to offer up a bogus explaniation, but the fact remains that they didn't correct the rumor when they had 3 hours to do so.
Bells rang out, and jubulant people streamed forth proclaiming a miracle. For 3 hours-- 180 minutes-- no one from the company bothered to tell the families or the media that this rumor they heard was tragically dead wrong. It is one thing to keep hope alive, it is quite another to let happy lies go uncorrected. The company could have told the families that they didn't know yet, that it was too soon to tell. Instead they let them rejoice until 3 AM and then broke the devastating news.
I don't know if a law was broken, other than the dozens of safety violations that went unenforced under Bush's OSHA, but what this company did to the relatives of its former employees was immoral. They can say it was a "miscommunication," they can trot out the governor to offer up a bogus explaniation, but the fact remains that they didn't correct the rumor when they had 3 hours to do so.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
new year, same old crap
Well happy 2006 everyone. May this year be the one when corrupt Washingtonians see their bags packed by the voters and juries. While Bush boot licker Alberto Gonzales is investigating who blew the whistle on the NSA's warrantless wiretapping, we are supposed to ignore the fact that Gonzales was in this unconstitutional power grab neck deep. This marks at least the second time he gave his client (Bush) really bad legal advice by telling him what he wanted to hear (before it was its ok to torture). The job of WH counsel is not as an advocate of the president but as a confidential legal advisor. But at this White House, everyone has to be an advocate, or they are shown the door (or given nicknames of Democrats like DOJ's number 2).
Meanwhile, Abramoff sang to the Feds, giving up at least Ohio Republican Bob Ney and Texas Republican Tom DeLay. Who knows who else is lying underneeth Jack's bedsheets? Montana Senator Conrad Burns? Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (whose last name is ironically German for honest)? The breadth and depth of this scandal could be such that the Justice Department would be in jepardy of handing a political victory to the Democrats by convicting enough members of Congress to sway control of a chamber (most likely the House). Of course, like AbScam, that won't happen.
Oh and sorry for not posting for so long. I was enjoying Christmas, all the family in town, our new place, and a week off with my wife. We got lots done, like installing a new lighting system under our kitchen cabinets. I litterally was lying on the stove hammering into the cabinets. And I got about half-way through Jared Diamond's Collapse. It is the flip side of his amazing (and Pulitzer Prize winning) book Guns, Germs and Steel. I love books that try to say one thing (or a couple of things) were/was the determining factor(s) in human history (like Salt).
Next week, I begin school again, which features teaching East High School students about law. I wish I could tell you more about what exactly I will be teaching and so on, but they haven't told me. Should be interesting and hopefully fun.
Meanwhile, Abramoff sang to the Feds, giving up at least Ohio Republican Bob Ney and Texas Republican Tom DeLay. Who knows who else is lying underneeth Jack's bedsheets? Montana Senator Conrad Burns? Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich (whose last name is ironically German for honest)? The breadth and depth of this scandal could be such that the Justice Department would be in jepardy of handing a political victory to the Democrats by convicting enough members of Congress to sway control of a chamber (most likely the House). Of course, like AbScam, that won't happen.
Oh and sorry for not posting for so long. I was enjoying Christmas, all the family in town, our new place, and a week off with my wife. We got lots done, like installing a new lighting system under our kitchen cabinets. I litterally was lying on the stove hammering into the cabinets. And I got about half-way through Jared Diamond's Collapse. It is the flip side of his amazing (and Pulitzer Prize winning) book Guns, Germs and Steel. I love books that try to say one thing (or a couple of things) were/was the determining factor(s) in human history (like Salt).
Next week, I begin school again, which features teaching East High School students about law. I wish I could tell you more about what exactly I will be teaching and so on, but they haven't told me. Should be interesting and hopefully fun.
Monday, December 26, 2005
the difference between DC Republicans and DC Democrats
Of course, I could be overly generalizing, and to a degree I am. Nevertheless, I have been doing some thinking over the Christmas break about why things are so messed up and my conclusion is that those in power in DC (the heads of the GOP) fundamentally see government differently than those out of power (the heads of the Democratic Party). Bush, Cheney, Frist, DeLay, Blount, Cunningham...all down the line of leadership posts, those folks see government as a bad thing. Or at least they did before they got the strings in DC. So they have combined their idea of the government will always to do wrong with the idea that we might as well use the government to our advantage. Since the government has no real place in civil society, the federal government should just been a tool to enrich ourselves and our allies, while punishing our enemies.
By constrast, the Clinton administration saw the government as a tool to help the People of the US and the world. They saw the federal government as a well meaning but at times bumbling agency that could in some areas do more good if it turned things over to the private sector.
Bush and his friends saw the government as something that was never really well meaning and that since it never can do good, we might as well use it to be good to us. Privization was not to make the things government does now work better (like deliver the mail) but to enrich donors and other supporters (see Cunningham, DeLay, and the expanding Abramoff scandal). There was no need to place experts in any field in a department, but better to get jobs for folks that helped you get into power (see FEMA and Katrina).
Bush did a great job getting the private aid set up for the South Asian Tsunami and Katrina disasters via his father and his father's old nemisis Bill Clinton. But Bush couldn't and wouldn't get the federal government to do anything to actually help people.
What I am not saying in this piece is that Republicans in general are all theiving scoundrels, but that their leaders are. And that the idea of the federal government is your enemy--an idea that is the foundation of the modern conservatism movement does have a logical link to the cronyism, the war/disaster profiteering, and actual bribery that defines the GOP establishment in our Nation's Capital.
That is not to say that Democrats don't have their own profiteers and scoundrels, but those folks are not power positions, either in government or in the party superstructure, nor do such Democrats exist in such numbers.
The devaluation of what government has led to the situation we find ourselves in now.
By constrast, the Clinton administration saw the government as a tool to help the People of the US and the world. They saw the federal government as a well meaning but at times bumbling agency that could in some areas do more good if it turned things over to the private sector.
Bush and his friends saw the government as something that was never really well meaning and that since it never can do good, we might as well use it to be good to us. Privization was not to make the things government does now work better (like deliver the mail) but to enrich donors and other supporters (see Cunningham, DeLay, and the expanding Abramoff scandal). There was no need to place experts in any field in a department, but better to get jobs for folks that helped you get into power (see FEMA and Katrina).
Bush did a great job getting the private aid set up for the South Asian Tsunami and Katrina disasters via his father and his father's old nemisis Bill Clinton. But Bush couldn't and wouldn't get the federal government to do anything to actually help people.
What I am not saying in this piece is that Republicans in general are all theiving scoundrels, but that their leaders are. And that the idea of the federal government is your enemy--an idea that is the foundation of the modern conservatism movement does have a logical link to the cronyism, the war/disaster profiteering, and actual bribery that defines the GOP establishment in our Nation's Capital.
That is not to say that Democrats don't have their own profiteers and scoundrels, but those folks are not power positions, either in government or in the party superstructure, nor do such Democrats exist in such numbers.
The devaluation of what government has led to the situation we find ourselves in now.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Chalabi:Kucinich::Hatch:Lieberman
What do they all have in common? They are losers in the eyes of the electorate.
Ouch! that's got to hurt more than Joe Lieberman finishing fifth in New Hampshire with 9% (and that was his best finish outside Delaware and Connecticut).
Atrios wonders if Rummy et al will start defending Chalabi's claims of massive election fraud. Idiots like Doug Feith and the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee crew might, but they are the biggest jokes out there.
Preliminary results in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad indicate that Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress scored a minuscule 0.36 percent of the votes.
Out of almost 2.5 million voters in Baghdad, only 8,645 voted for Chalabi.
In the Shiite city of Basra, the results indicate he had an equally dismal showing of 0.34 percent of the vote.
In the violent Sunni province of Anbar, 113 people voted for him.
Ouch! that's got to hurt more than Joe Lieberman finishing fifth in New Hampshire with 9% (and that was his best finish outside Delaware and Connecticut).
Atrios wonders if Rummy et al will start defending Chalabi's claims of massive election fraud. Idiots like Doug Feith and the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee crew might, but they are the biggest jokes out there.
ID and its place in schools
This follow up is a response to commenter "Joe" from the previous post. He made two points, 1) any discussion of philosophy invariably involves a discussion of God or some sort of supernatural explanation for the way the world works and 2) there has to be gaps in the fossil record even assuming what science tells us is true--namely, that the Earth is billions of years old and is very dynamic. I will deal with the second one first as it is the easiest to dispense with.
Joe, when I talked about gaps in the fossil records, I am referring to ID proponents claims that there seems to be sudden changes that cannot be explained by gradual change, ergo creatures must have been created by some intelligent designer (which ID people won't say is the Judeo-Christian God, but let's face it, that's to who they are referring).
Undoubtedly, we cannot trace the evolutionary development of every single species from the dawn of life until present day, due to volcanoes, meters, earthquakes, erosion, etc. But the Plaintiff experts certainly convinced Judge Jones (and me) that none of these "gaps" necessitate that the theory of evolution is flawed. "Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre-Cambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board at 85.
In short, the judge analyzed each and every critique of evolution and every critique of ID and came out in the favor of evolution as good science and ID as non-science.
To your first point, that discussions of God and the supernatural are long traditions in philosophy. In the ancient days, philosophy and science were inseperable, they both sought to discover the way the universe works. That's why Aristotle was both a botanist and a ethicist (other than the fact that he was really smart).
In my courses on philosophy (one taught in a German college prep school, another taught at Brown University), we talked about supernatural explanations of things, but never about God or the will of God. That was for religion classes.
Personally, I think scientists do what they do not because they want to be or think they are God(s) but because they are trying to understand God's work. God could have very well created the rules that we call physics, how chemicals react, etc. This still seems consistant with the beginning of the Gospell according to John [which by the way really should be "In the beginning was the idea..." because the word John actually used Logos does not necessarily mean "Word"]. To me, there can still be a creator and Lord of us all without having to disprove or discount evolution. Natural section could be God's way. I truly belive that "everything happens for a reason."
Philosophers, like theologians, are involved in figuring out how one should live their life. But ethics is completely independant of evolution, notwithstanding ID supporter's statements that evolution contridicts "every word in the Bible." Philosophy no longer muses about the origin of life, that is again left to either biology or theology.
Joe, when I talked about gaps in the fossil records, I am referring to ID proponents claims that there seems to be sudden changes that cannot be explained by gradual change, ergo creatures must have been created by some intelligent designer (which ID people won't say is the Judeo-Christian God, but let's face it, that's to who they are referring).
Undoubtedly, we cannot trace the evolutionary development of every single species from the dawn of life until present day, due to volcanoes, meters, earthquakes, erosion, etc. But the Plaintiff experts certainly convinced Judge Jones (and me) that none of these "gaps" necessitate that the theory of evolution is flawed. "Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about pre-Cambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board at 85.
In short, the judge analyzed each and every critique of evolution and every critique of ID and came out in the favor of evolution as good science and ID as non-science.
To your first point, that discussions of God and the supernatural are long traditions in philosophy. In the ancient days, philosophy and science were inseperable, they both sought to discover the way the universe works. That's why Aristotle was both a botanist and a ethicist (other than the fact that he was really smart).
In my courses on philosophy (one taught in a German college prep school, another taught at Brown University), we talked about supernatural explanations of things, but never about God or the will of God. That was for religion classes.
Personally, I think scientists do what they do not because they want to be or think they are God(s) but because they are trying to understand God's work. God could have very well created the rules that we call physics, how chemicals react, etc. This still seems consistant with the beginning of the Gospell according to John [which by the way really should be "In the beginning was the idea..." because the word John actually used Logos does not necessarily mean "Word"]. To me, there can still be a creator and Lord of us all without having to disprove or discount evolution. Natural section could be God's way. I truly belive that "everything happens for a reason."
Philosophers, like theologians, are involved in figuring out how one should live their life. But ethics is completely independant of evolution, notwithstanding ID supporter's statements that evolution contridicts "every word in the Bible." Philosophy no longer muses about the origin of life, that is again left to either biology or theology.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Utah legislature: (un)intelligent design
"That ruling won't affect my bill at all. . . . My bill isn't written in that manner," Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said about yesterday's ruling on intelligence design in Pennslyvania. Buttars wants ID tought in an humanities or philosphy class. That sounds like making a philosphy class a theology class. But, wait it gets worse.
"It does challenge the school board, that they're going to have to rewrite their position on evolution to some degree," Buttars said. "Let me put it this way: There is no consensus in the scientific community regarding how life began . . . (so) to have a teacher teaching how life began and calling it fact really offends me. . . . I'm going to stop that. That's all I'm going to say right now."
From yesterday's Kitzmiller decision: "Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence...[Plaintiff expert and paleontologist] Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, --F.3d -- (M.D.Pa. 2005) pp.83-84 of Document 342.
I guess Buttars really didn't have time to read this through debunking of ID as any sort of science and that ID backers distort and misrepresent any dispute amoung scientists about evolution. There are no "gaps in the fossil record" and the book "Of Pandas and People" is bad science, even the Defense experts acknowledged that.
Slate's William Saletan, argues that, "Scientifically, [Judge] Jones settles the issue. Culturally, he fails." Perhaps this is a better explaination for why Buttars insists on going forward, despite there being scientific consensus on how life began and developed. There is still cultural debate about how allegorical or literal the Book of Genesis is. Yet the whole ID movement is premised on the idea that you can either believe in God or Darwin, and not both.
One of the Plaintiff's experts, Brown Biology Professor Kenneth Miller, is an ardent Catholic, yet he is one of the leading defenders of Natural Selection and doesn't see it as conflicting with his beliefs. "Certainty of outcome means that control and predictability come at the price of independence." Miller explained to Brown Alumni Magazine. "By being always in control, the Creator would deny His creatures any real opportunity to know and worship Him. Authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation." That freedom, Miller concludes, "is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of divine direction attached to every living creature."
Miller has even written books about this very notion, called Finding Darwin's God.
But let's get back to public policy. "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID policy," Jones wrote, "The students, parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
And yet, Buttars was well recieved by his GOP collegues behind (of course) closed doors. This is the same group that thinks it is ok for LDS Institutes of Religion to be across the street from High Schools, and to get course credit for it (this has since stopped). Or who stop everything to ban all High School clubs and groups because of gay-straight alliance clubs. The culture wars are winning issues for Utah Republicans, but a losing issue for the progress of society here.
"It does challenge the school board, that they're going to have to rewrite their position on evolution to some degree," Buttars said. "Let me put it this way: There is no consensus in the scientific community regarding how life began . . . (so) to have a teacher teaching how life began and calling it fact really offends me. . . . I'm going to stop that. That's all I'm going to say right now."
From yesterday's Kitzmiller decision: "Despite the scientific community’s overwhelming support for evolution Defendants and ID proponents insist that evolution is unsupported by empirical evidence...[Plaintiff expert and paleontologist] Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, --F.3d -- (M.D.Pa. 2005) pp.83-84 of Document 342.
I guess Buttars really didn't have time to read this through debunking of ID as any sort of science and that ID backers distort and misrepresent any dispute amoung scientists about evolution. There are no "gaps in the fossil record" and the book "Of Pandas and People" is bad science, even the Defense experts acknowledged that.
Slate's William Saletan, argues that, "Scientifically, [Judge] Jones settles the issue. Culturally, he fails." Perhaps this is a better explaination for why Buttars insists on going forward, despite there being scientific consensus on how life began and developed. There is still cultural debate about how allegorical or literal the Book of Genesis is. Yet the whole ID movement is premised on the idea that you can either believe in God or Darwin, and not both.
One of the Plaintiff's experts, Brown Biology Professor Kenneth Miller, is an ardent Catholic, yet he is one of the leading defenders of Natural Selection and doesn't see it as conflicting with his beliefs. "Certainty of outcome means that control and predictability come at the price of independence." Miller explained to Brown Alumni Magazine. "By being always in control, the Creator would deny His creatures any real opportunity to know and worship Him. Authentic love requires freedom, not manipulation." That freedom, Miller concludes, "is best supplied by the open contingency of evolution, and not by strings of divine direction attached to every living creature."
Miller has even written books about this very notion, called Finding Darwin's God.
But let's get back to public policy. "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID policy," Jones wrote, "The students, parents and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."
And yet, Buttars was well recieved by his GOP collegues behind (of course) closed doors. This is the same group that thinks it is ok for LDS Institutes of Religion to be across the street from High Schools, and to get course credit for it (this has since stopped). Or who stop everything to ban all High School clubs and groups because of gay-straight alliance clubs. The culture wars are winning issues for Utah Republicans, but a losing issue for the progress of society here.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Cheney thinks we're all Homer
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock. (Cohen, 1996)
VP Dick Cheney, defending Bush's domestic NSA spying sans FISA warrants: "It's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years." 12/20/05
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
